I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Its not a good thing, because it means the people of Mississippi are largely poor and in need of assistance.

I was in Biloxi, Mississippi this past week. Holy cow is it poor. All the products in the stores made in China and huge amounts of the city idle. Why am I the only person who makes this connection?

China is not the problem for Mississippi. Ever heard of the smile curve? The "value added" in a chain of goods dips to its lowest at manufacturing. It peaks at the ends, at research and development and at branding. That said, a lot of mid-end manufacturing is nevertheless drifting back from China because the Chinese are so poor at quality control. Also, dealing with Chinese business practices are a nightmare. See one of any two posts on this site: http://www.chinalawblog.com/

Protectionism won't solve Mississippi's problems. Hawley-Smoot destroyed the U.S. economy in the lead up to the Great Depression era. Even if the United States were to follow Krugman's disasterous advice and declare a trade war on China, Mississippi still exists in a massive 50-state free trade zone. The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause has been interpreted to prevent States from adopting protectionist policies against other States.

I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Its not a good thing, because it means the people of Mississippi are largely poor and in need of assistance.

I was in Biloxi, Mississippi this past week. Holy cow is it poor. All the products in the stores made in China and huge amounts of the city idle. Why am I the only person who makes this connection?

I was there a few months after Katrina and the place looked terrible. I wonder how much an effect that had on its current state. Anyways it was easy to tell that it was poor before the hurricane, but afterwards it was worse than most third world countries.

I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Its not a good thing, because it means the people of Mississippi are largely poor and in need of assistance.

I was in Biloxi, Mississippi this past week. Holy cow is it poor. All the products in the stores made in China and huge amounts of the city idle. Why am I the only person who makes this connection?

China is not the problem for Mississippi. Ever heard of the smile curve? The "value added" in a chain of goods dips to its lowest at manufacturing. It peaks at the ends, at research and development and at branding. That said, a lot of mid-end manufacturing is nevertheless drifting back from China because the Chinese are so poor at quality control. Also, dealing with Chinese business practices are a nightmare. See one of any two posts on this site: http://www.chinalawblog.com/

Protectionism won't solve Mississippi's problems. Hawley-Smoot destroyed the U.S. economy in the lead up to the Great Depression era. Even if the United States were to follow Krugman's disasterous advice and declare a trade war on China, Mississippi still exists in a massive 50-state free trade zone. The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause has been interpreted to prevent States from adopting protectionist policies against other States.

Because Mississippi exists in a union with 49 other states who have relatively similar regulatory burdens, wage/tax/cost structures does not mean that it can exist equally well in a union with all other states, what with the incredible variance in cost/regulatory/wage structures.

I think you mean that Mississippi takes $2 from other States for every $1 it contributes to them. And this is a good thing? Shouldn't the people of Mississippi be responsible for their own finances?

Its not a good thing, because it means the people of Mississippi are largely poor and in need of assistance.

I was in Biloxi, Mississippi this past week. Holy cow is it poor. All the products in the stores made in China and huge amounts of the city idle. Why am I the only person who makes this connection?

China is not the problem for Mississippi. Ever heard of the smile curve? The "value added" in a chain of goods dips to its lowest at manufacturing. It peaks at the ends, at research and development and at branding. That said, a lot of mid-end manufacturing is nevertheless drifting back from China because the Chinese are so poor at quality control. Also, dealing with Chinese business practices are a nightmare. See one of any two posts on this site: http://www.chinalawblog.com/

Protectionism won't solve Mississippi's problems. Hawley-Smoot destroyed the U.S. economy in the lead up to the Great Depression era. Even if the United States were to follow Krugman's disasterous advice and declare a trade war on China, Mississippi still exists in a massive 50-state free trade zone. The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause has been interpreted to prevent States from adopting protectionist policies against other States.

Because Mississippi exists in a union with 49 other states who have relatively similar regulatory burdens, wage/tax/cost structures does not mean that it can exist equally well in a union with all other states, what with the incredible variance in cost/regulatory/wage structures.

Taxation won't diminish inequality. Rising wages will.

Protectionism is as hopeless as the gold standard. I'm not going to devote time arguing the point. I agree that rising wages will diminish inequality, after all, I called tax and spend a stopgap. It will take a full attack on the FIRE economy before wages will rise.

I know you're a right-winger, so you just cannot abide taxing the rich more. But its a better solution than protectionism, which is a proven failure.

Protectionism is as hopeless as the gold standard. I'm not going to devote time arguing the point.

Protectionism is how the USA became wealthy. I see you've tried to link it with the gold standard in a fit of snark, but remember, I forgot more economic theory and history yesterday then you've learned in the last ten years.

Quote:

I know you're a right-winger, so you just cannot abide taxing the rich more. But its a better solution than protectionism, which is a proven failure.

So the guy who lived in Korea and is now in Kentucky looks around the world and says "protectionism is a proven failure". Bravo. Read The Atlantic more.

Let's walk you though it, nice and slow.

We have a corporation that produces widgets (b/c economists just love their stupid widget examples).

It can choose to produce in two jurisdictions.

1) a high tax area with strong environmental regulations. The society has decided not to allow widget manufacturers to just destroy the land and air and imposes things like vacation, workers comp, and the rest.

2) a low tax area with none of the above.

The firm, unhinged from any protectionism, will produce where?

Further, are the standards of 2 sustainable if it is in direct competition with 1?

Protectionism is as hopeless as the gold standard. I'm not going to devote time arguing the point.

Protectionism is how the USA became wealthy. I see you've tried to link it with the gold standard in a fit of snark, but remember, I forgot more economic theory and history yesterday then you've learned in the last ten years.

Unless I'm wrong, and you're Mises and not Koveras, I seriously doubt that comparison.

Why would you stop? Did you walk around Korea thinking that Free Trade was what built that nation? Taiwan? Japan? China today? Good lord guy. How the hell is Mississippi going to directly compete with China. Even her natural advantage in agriculture is undermined though free trade.

Free trade is the ideology of the nomad. We really should know better.

Koveras has more grace and intelligence in a toenail than I sum-total. I'm honoured that the two could be confused, but fear it instead speaks to the liberal mind clumping in all traditionalist dissent as one.

I agree with Titus in general about the potential benefits of greater protectionism for America collectively, but I disagree that Mississippi would suddenly turn around in such an environment; Mississippi is always going to be poor in relation to the other states, largely because of the people who live in Mississippi; accomplishments like Korea are about more than just policy.

I'm honoured that the two could be confused, but fear it instead speaks to the liberal mind clumping in all traditionalist dissent as one.

I've read plenty of posts where you clump in leftists together for your purposes. We all do it to some extent. And there's a constant flow of strident Democratic types who love to lump in all libertarianism with the Chicago school.

I agree with Titus in general about the potential benefits of greater protectionism for America collectively, but I disagree that Mississippi would suddenly turn around in such an environment; Mississippi is always going to be poor in relation to the other states, largely because of the people who live in Mississippi; accomplishments like Korea are about more than just policy.

Protectionism won't work. The greatest threat to American jobs remains increased mechanization and technological innovation, not China. Good luck rescuing low- to mid-tech manufacturing jobs from the 3D Printer over the next decade.

I agree with Titus in general about the potential benefits of greater protectionism for America collectively, but I disagree that Mississippi would suddenly turn around in such an environment; Mississippi is always going to be poor in relation to the other states, largely because of the people who live in Mississippi; accomplishments like Korea are about more than just policy.

Protectionism won't work. The greatest threat to American jobs remains increased mechanization and technological innovation, not China. Good luck rescuing low- to mid-tech manufacturing jobs from the 3D Printer over the next decade.

I don't disagree that technological advancement also erodes the value of labor. I see two ailments regarding the devaluation of labor; one can be cured (excessive and needless importation of goods) and one that cannot and probably should not be (innovation). Rectifying the former with protectionist policies and pseudo-nationalizing the value (not the administration) of the means of production through wealth redistribution to amend the latter seems fine to me (and the aforementioned protectionism will also prevent hostile capital holders from "taking their ball and going home" so to speak if they get too pouty about compensation reduction - two birds with one stone).

I'd say those silly seccession petitions are perfect example that there is a liberal governing coalition in place; otherwise far-right conservatives wouldn't want to leave the union.

Personally, I see this as the not-surprising outcome of the Republican's rhetoric of how Obama will ruin the country. Gov. Perry now is distancing himself from these not-so-mainstream people and it shows that Gov. Perry is smarter than he looked during the Republican primaries.

Republicans need to sober-up and look at the mob they are leading and ask themselves if this is what they want the U.S. to look like? I don't think they do.

It is time for responsible government not anti-government. To me, that is what the electorate asked for. For example, a government that could respond to huricanes. That is what the electorate wanted - responsible government - not "wacky."

On the one hand, I agree with you. Eight years ago there were a lot of liberals who whined and moaned about moving to Canada when thier guy did not win. It is much the same this time...

BUT there is a qualitative difference.

In 1814 the Federalists met in Hartford to discuss secession in the late stage of the War of 1812. It was not a good choice. It pretty much lent itself to the suicide of the Party. They did not recover from the taint of treason in a national crisis.

Now we have (as far as I can see) somewhat of a similar situation. It's one thing for someone to stomp off in a huff and say he's going Galt. It's entirely another thing for a couple hundred thousand people to say they want to secede like in 1860/1861. Words have connotations, and 'secede' has connotations.

For a very looooong time I had to put up with the idea that 'liberal' was a dirty swear word with the most egregious meaning. It looks to me like the word 'conservative' means 'secession', 'treason', 'idiocy', 'selfishness'... I am not alone in this.